New spy chief Michael McConnell is developing legislative proposals to strengthen his hand, from major changes like authorizing warrantless surveillance to smaller changes such as altering how intelligence analysts are paid.

Several proposals could set him at odds with the Democratic-run Congress, where concerns are running high about investigative abuses by the FBI.

McConnell and other top officials at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) briefed reporters Wednesday on his plan for the next 100 days; they detailed how aspects of his plan might require congressional approval.

While some of the proposals could gain traction in Congress, others are likely to falter. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will hold a hearing April 17 on possible changes to a 1978 law that governs surveillance, under which the Bush administration is seeking expanded powers to spy without warrants on foreign terrorism suspects communicating with individuals in the United States. Democrats remain leery of giving the administration such authority, fearing that it could jeopardize the privacy of innocent citizens.

Democrats are likely to be more receptive to other ideas and have even invited some of them. At the request of members in both parties, McConnell is studying whether he needs lawmakers to grant him more authority than he has under the 2004 intelligence overhaul law (PL 108-458) to achieve the aims of the Sept. 11 commission.

Lawmakers will receive some of the formal proposals soon as part of an administration request for the fiscal year 2008 intelligence authorization bill. Others, such as McConnell’s suggestions on additional tools he believes he needs to manage the intelligence community, will come later.

Proposals to change the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA; PL 95-511) are certain to be most controversial and, even though they are in draft form, look unlikely to advance.

The heart of the draft bill circulated on Capitol Hill is essentially a repeat of some previous administration efforts. It would allow the administration to conduct surveillance of suspected terrorists overseas when communicating with someone in the United States, without approval from the secret court that grants warrants for wiretapping.

McConnell said he would not go into specifics on the proposal, in the works for a year, until the committee hearing next week. But he said protecting privacy was a major consideration.

“What we are attempting to do is make what we do relevant in today’s technology base,” he said. “It has changed so dramatically.”

A related proposal, also promoted last year, would offer protections against lawsuits for telecommunications companies that have participated in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program, the topic of another Senate Intelligence hearing April 19.

Intelligence Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., said his view of past administration proposals to allow warrantless surveillance were “not favorable.”

A House Intelligence Committee source said the administration has yet to do a very good job of explaining why it needs the extra surveillance powers, either in public or to Congress. The liability provisions have raised “concerns,” the source said, and the panel needs more information about how the companies became involved with the surveillance program.

A spokeswoman said Rockefeller will approach the subject with an open mind at next week’s hearings.

“He looks forward to hearing the administration’s proposal and hearing from the administration next week,” said the spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi.

McConnell did not say when he might report to Congress on whether he needs more power to manage the intelligence community. During a speech April 4, McConnell complained that he did not have the ability to hire or fire anyone in nearly all the individual intelligence agencies.

If the past is an indicator, Democrats could resist any proposals to help the DNI implement a communitywide pay system that ties raises for intelligence employees to their managers’ performance evaluations.

Democrats, as well as their allies in government unions, have been critical of pay-for-performance systems at the Defense and Homeland Security departments.

Ronald Sanders, chief of Human Capital in the DNI’s office, said most intelligence agencies have the authority they need to implement such a system, but that the DNI would need congressional approval to move some intelligence agencies, such as those housed in the Treasury and State departments, to pay-for-performance.

Another item on McConnell’s agenda is testing alternative security clearance procedures. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence recently held a hearing on security clearances, which remain heavily backlogged, and Democrats in Congress may want to push further than McConnell’s proposal.

Ben Powell, general counsel for the office of the DNI, said the administration’s proposal for a fiscal 2008 intelligence authorization bill would include a number of other, more routine requests for changes.

Much of McConnell’s 100-day agenda can be achieved without legislation. Its six areas of focus are encouraging collaboration, improving analysis and collection, speeding up technology acquisition, better managing personnel and resources, expanding information sharing, and clarifying the role of the DNI.